Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-7pwfn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-12T18:10:53.462Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Risk Factors for Surgical Site Infections Following Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 March 2016

Michael V. Murphy,
Dongyi (Tony) Du,
Wei Hua,
Karoll J. Cortez,
Melissa G. Butler,
Robert L. Davis,
Thomas A. DeCoster,
Laura Johnson,
Lingling Li and
Cynthia Nakasato
...Show all authors
Michael V. Murphy*
Affiliation:
Department of Population Medicine, Harvard Medical School and Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute, Boston, Massachusetts
Dongyi (Tony) Du
Affiliation:
Office of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, Rockville, Maryland
Wei Hua
Affiliation:
Office of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, Rockville, Maryland
Karoll J. Cortez
Affiliation:
Office of Cellular, Tissue and Gene Therapies, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, Rockville, Maryland
Melissa G. Butler
Affiliation:
Center for Clinical & Outcomes Research, Kaiser Permanentema, Atlanta, Georgia
Robert L. Davis
Affiliation:
Center for Clinical & Outcomes Research, Kaiser Permanentema, Atlanta, Georgia
Thomas A. DeCoster
Affiliation:
Department of Orthopaedics and Rehabilitation, University of New Mexico School of Medicine, Albuquerque, New Mexico
Laura Johnson
Affiliation:
Center for Health Services Research, Henry Ford Health System, Detroit, Michigan
Lingling Li
Affiliation:
Department of Population Medicine, Harvard Medical School and Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute, Boston, Massachusetts
Cynthia Nakasato
Affiliation:
Center for Health Research, Kaiser Permanente Hawaii, Honolulu, Hawaii
James D. Nordin
Affiliation:
HealthPartners Institute for Education and Research, Minneapolis, Minnesota
Mayur Ramesh
Affiliation:
Center for Health Services Research, Henry Ford Health System, Detroit, Michigan
Michael Schum
Affiliation:
Health Services Research Division, LCF Research, Albuquerque, New Mexico
Ann Von Worley
Affiliation:
Health Services Research Division, LCF Research, Albuquerque, New Mexico
Craig Zinderman
Affiliation:
Office of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, Rockville, Maryland
Richard Platt
Affiliation:
Department of Population Medicine, Harvard Medical School and Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute, Boston, Massachusetts
Michael Klompas
Affiliation:
Department of Population Medicine, Harvard Medical School and Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute, Boston, MassachusettsDepartment of Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts
*
Address correspondence to Michael V. Murphy, BA, Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute, 401 Park Dr, Ste 401, Boston, MA 02215 (michael.v.murphy@gmail.com).
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To determine the effect of graft choice (allograft, bone-patellar tendon-bone autograft, or hamstring autograft) on deep tissue infections following anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstructions.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

SETTING AND POPULATION

Patients from 6 US health plans who underwent ACL reconstruction from January 1, 2000, through December 31, 2008.

METHODS

We identified ACL reconstructions and potential postoperative infections using claims data. A hierarchical stratified sampling strategy was used to identify patients for medical record review to confirm ACL reconstructions and to determine allograft vs autograft tissue implanted, clinical characteristics, and infection status. We estimated infection rates overall and by graft type. We used logistic regression to assess the association between infections and patients’ demographic characteristics, comorbidities, and choice of graft.

RESULTS

On review of 1,452 medical records, we found 55 deep wound infections. With correction for sampling weights, infection rates varied by graft type: 0.5% (95% CI, 0.3%-0.8%) with allografts, 0.6% (0.1%–1.5%) with bone-patellar tendon-bone autografts, and 2.5% (1.9%–3.1%) with hamstring autograft. After adjusting for potential confounders, we found an increased infection risk with hamstring autografts compared with allografts (odds ratio, 5.9; 95% CI, 2.8–12.8). However, there was no difference in infection risk among bone-patellar tendon-bone autografts vs allografts (odds ratio, 1.2; 95% CI, 0.3–4.8).

CONCLUSIONS

The overall risk for deep wound infections following ACL reconstruction is low but it does vary by graft type. Infection risk was highest in hamstring autograft recipients compared with allograft recipients and bone-patellar tendon-bone autograft recipients.

Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2016;37:827–833

Information

Type
Original Articles
Information
Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology , Volume 37 , Issue 7 , July 2016, pp. 827 - 833
Copyright
© 2016 by The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America. All rights reserved 

Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction is one of the most common orthopedic surgeries in the United States, with an estimated 100,000 procedures annually.Reference Lyman, Koulouvaris, Sherman, Do, Mandl and Marx 1 – Reference Katz, Battaglia, Patino, Reichmann, Hunter and Richmond 4 Risk of deep tissue infection following ACL reconstruction is low, with reports ranging from 0.14–1.7%.Reference Katz, Battaglia, Patino, Reichmann, Hunter and Richmond 4 – Reference Williams, Laurencin, Warren, Speciale, Brause and O’Brien 18 However, these infections can be devastating because treatment often requires additional operative procedures and extended courses of intravenous antibiotics.

Risk factors for infection following ACL reconstruction are not well characterized. Risk factors typically associated with surgical site infections presumably also hold true for ACL reconstruction, but a recurring area of controversy is whether graft choice influences infection risk. Options include replacing the damaged ligament with either allograft tissue harvested from a deceased human donor or autograft tissue harvested from the index patient. The most common autograft harvest tissues are hamstring and bone-patellar tendon-bone.

Potential advantages of allograft tissue include avoiding harvest site morbidity, shortening operative time, decreasing postoperative pain, and flexibility to choose from a variety of graft sizes.Reference Baer and Harner 19 – Reference Strickland, MacGillivray and Warren 21 There is concern, however, that introducing tissue from deceased human donors may increase the risk of infection.Reference Mallick, Mosquera, Zinderman, Martin and Wise 22 – 33 Studies to date comparing allograft vs autograft tissue for ACL reconstruction have not found statistically significant differences in infection risk but may have been underpowered.Reference Greenberg, Robertson, Vallurupalli, White and Allen 3 – Reference Barker, Drakos, Maak, Warren, Williams and Allen 5 , Reference Indelli, Dillingham, Fanton and Schurman 16 Given these concerns, we conducted a study to assess risk factors for infection following ACL reconstruction, with particular attention to the role played by the type of graft implanted.

METHODS

Setting and Population

The study was conducted at 6 US health plans: Harvard Pilgrim Health Care, HealthPartners Institute for Education and Research, Henry Ford Health System, LCF Research, Kaiser Permanente Georgia, and Kaiser Permanente Hawaii. Each site’s institutional review board provided approval.

As described in a previous study,Reference Murphy, Du and Hua 34 we searched insurance claims from each site for Current Procedural Terminology code 29888 (arthroscopically aided ACL reconstruction) and International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision procedure code 81.45 (other repair of the cruciate ligaments) to identify all patients undergoing ACL reconstruction from January 1, 2000, through December 31, 2008.

Medical Record Review

We reviewed medical records for a sample of patients undergoing ACL reconstruction to identify clinical characteristics, operative factors, and surgical site infections. We used a hierarchical stratified sampling strategy to identify patients for medical record review. This strategy preferentially selected patients considered a priori to have a higher probability of infection on the basis of claims codes suggestive of possible infection within the 6 months following surgery. These claims codes included new claims for readmission, reoperation, microbiology tests, infection management procedures, and/or new antibiotic dispensings. Patients were divided into 5 non-overlapping strata on the basis of their claims codes. Within each stratum, a random sample was selected for medical record review with a greater proportion of patients sampled in the higher probability strata compared with the lower probability strata. This method is described in further detail elsewhereReference Murphy, Du and Hua 34 and additional information is included in the supplementary materials.

At each study site, a trained nurse reviewed medical records and abstracted data including demographic characteristics, medical histories, comorbidities, medications, surgical procedures, and evidence of presence or absence of a surgical site infection within 6 months of surgery. An infectious disease physician with expertise in infection control trained the lead abstractor, who in turn trained all the other abstractors. All unclear cases were referred to the lead abstractor and infectious disease physician for adjudication.

Abstractors were instructed to assess an extensive list of infection risk factors: prior infection in the affected knee, prior surgery in the affected knee, chemotherapy within the past year, bone marrow transplant, cancer, diabetes, human immunodeficiency virus, renal disease (defined as creatinine level ≥2), organ transplant, connective tissue disorder (eg, rheumatoid arthritis, Marfan syndrome, Ehlers-Danlos syndrome), immune suppressive medications (eg, tumor necrosis factor–blockers, azathioprine, cellcept) within 1 month before surgery or 3 months following surgery, prolonged (>2 weeks) oral or intravenous steroids within 1 month prior or 3 months following surgery, and radiation therapy to the affected knee at any time before surgery or 3 months following surgery.

Abstractors applied Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Healthcare Safety Network definitions for surgical site infections, classifying them as deep or organ/space (hereafter referred to as “deep” infections) or superficial.Reference Horan, Andrus and Dudeck 35 We limited the postoperative risk window for deep infections to 6 months rather than 1 year because prior studies have shown that nearly all infections occur within this time frame.Reference Crawford, Kainer and Jernigan 2 , Reference Katz, Battaglia, Patino, Reichmann, Hunter and Richmond 4 , Reference Barker, Drakos, Maak, Warren, Williams and Allen 5 , Reference Wang, Ao, Wang, Hu, Cui and Yu 8 , Reference Binnet and Basarir 9 , Reference Van Tongel, Stuyck, Bellemans and Vandenneucker 11 – Reference Schollin-Borg, Michaelsson and Rahme 15 , Reference Williams, Laurencin, Warren, Speciale, Brause and O’Brien 18 If a patient was determined to have an infection, the abstractors recorded any pathogens identified. For surgeries using an autograft, we only included infections of the implant site in infection incidence estimates, not the harvest site.

Statistical Analysis

We estimated infection risk in the entire study cohort by calculating the incidence of infection within the subset of sampled medical records for each stratum and then projecting to the total population using inverse probability weighting. This method corrects for the oversampling of patients most likely to have infections. Specifically, for each combination of study site and sampling strata, we estimated the number of infections as Estimated Infections=Patients Identified* (Confirmed Infections/Records Reviewed). We added across all strata and divided the total estimated infections by the total number of patients identified to estimate the risk of infection. We generated confidence intervals (CIs) using Monte Carlo simulations. Specifically, we simulated the number of infections for each stratum using the binomial distribution and probabilities estimated from the observed data. We repeated this process 100,000 times and derived 95% CIs from the resulting 2.5 and 97.5 percentiles.

We used logistic regression to assess the association between infections and patients’ demographic characteristics, comorbidities, and choice of graft. Only patients whose medical records were reviewed were included in this analysis with each observation weighted using the inverse of the patient’s probability of being sampled to reflect the entire study cohort. We used deep infections as the outcome for this analysis because they are clinically unambiguous and more serious events than superficial infections. Analyses were performed using SAS, version 9.3 (SAS Institute).

RESULTS

We identified 11,778 patients with procedure codes for ACL reconstructions. We requested 2,044 medical records and received 1,752 for review. Of these, 1,452 had sufficient information to confirm ACL reconstruction, graft type, and infection status. At some study sites there were medical record review strata with no records reviewed. These strata with no medical record data did not contribute to the projected population, thus our projected study population is 11,772, instead of 11,778.

On review of the medical records, 485 procedures (33%) used allograft tissue, 561 (39%) used bone-patellar tendon-bone autograft tissue, and 406 (28%) used hamstring autograft tissue. After correcting for sampling weights, we projected 4,610 allograft recipients (39%), 4,491 bone-patellar tendon-bone autograft recipients (38%), and 2,671 hamstring autograft recipients (23%) in the total population. Characteristics of these patients are presented in Table 1. Hamstring autograft recipients were more likely to be younger than bone-patellar tendon-bone graft recipients and allograft recipients (36% of hamstring recipients were younger than 20 years compared with 28% for bone-patellar tendon-bone autograft recipients and 17% for allograft recipients; P=.0003). They were also less likely to be male (49% compared with 61% for bone-patellar tendon-bone autograft recipients and 51% of allograft recipients). Allograft tissue recipients were most likely to have had prior surgery in the affected knee (18%), followed by 10% of hamstring autograft recipients, and 5.8% of bone-patellar tendon-bone autograft recipients (P=.0004).

TABLE 1

Characteristics of Patients Undergoing Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction

NOTE. Projected results are based on 485 procedures using allograft tissue, 561 using bone-patellar tendon-bone (BPTB) autograft tissue, and 406 using hamstring autograft tissue, corrected for sampling weights. See supplementary materials for results from this sample.

We identified 203 infections (55 deep and 148 superficial) through medical record review. After correcting for sampling weights, we projected 496 infections (121 deep and 375 superficial) for an overall infection risk of 4.2% (95% CI, 3.4%–5.1%) and a deep infection risk of 1.0% (0.7%–1.4%) in the 6 months following surgery. The rate of deep infection was 0.5% (95% CI, 0.3%–0.8%) among allograft recipients, 0.6% (0.1%–1.5%) among bone-patellar tendon-bone autograft recipients, and 2.5% (1.9%–3.1%) among hamstring autograft recipients. The pathogens identified from patients with deep tissue infections are shown in Table 2. Coagulase-negative Staphylococcus was the most common organism overall (27%) and for both allograft tissue recipients and hamstring autograft tissue recipients (33% and 28%, respectively). Among bone-patellar tendon-bone autograft recipients Staphylococcus aureus was the most common pathogen (43%). A plurality of deep infections (35% overall) were culture negative.

TABLE 2

Pathogens by Graft Type

NOTE. Results from 55 deep tissue infections confirmed by medical record review. BPTB, bone-patellar tendon-bone.

a Multiple pathogen cases: (1) Acinetobacter lwoffi, Corynebacterium, and Enterococcus faecalis; (2) coagulase-negative Staphylococcus and Staphylococcus aureus; (3) Klebsiella and Pseudomonas; (4) Peptostreptococcus magnus and Staphylococcus aureus.

Characteristics of patients with and without deep tissue infections are presented in Table 3. In the univariate analysis, patients with deep infections were more likely to be male, to have hamstring autograft tissue implanted, to have connective tissue disorders, and to be taking immune suppressive medications. In the multivariate analysis, hamstring autograft tissue implanted (OR, 5.9; 95% CI, 2.8–12.8), connective tissue disorders (21.7; 3.7–126.3), male sex (2.5; 1.3–4.8), age 20 years or greater (2.7; 1.2–6.2), and use of immune suppressive medication (6.7; 1.3–34.8) remained significant risk factors.

TABLE 3

Risk Factors for Infection After Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction

NOTE. Projected results are based on 55 patients with deep infection and 1,397 without deep infection, corrected for sampling weights. See supplementary materials for results from this sample. BPTB, bone-patellar tendon-bone.

Autograft recipients had a significantly elevated risk of infection compared with allograft recipients (OR, 2.7; 95% CI, 1.2–5.9). However, there was no difference in risk of infection between bone-patellar tendon-bone autograft recipients vs allograft recipients (OR, 1.2; 95% CI, 0.3–4.8). Hamstring recipients, by contrast, had significantly higher risk of infection compared with both allograft recipients (OR, 5.9; 95% CI, 2.8–12.8) and bone-patellar tendon-bone autograft recipients (4.9; 1.4–17.8).

DISCUSSION

Deep surgical site infections following ACL reconstruction are rare; however, there appear to be significant differences in infection risk between different implant types. The adjusted risk of infection is higher with autograft vs allograft overall; however, this difference is driven exclusively by elevated risk with hamstring autografts vs bone-patellar tendon-bone autografts. We found no difference in the risk of infection between bone-patellar tendon-bone autografts vs allografts but significantly increased risk of infection with hamstring autografts vs allografts and vs bone-patellar bone-tendon autografts. Additional risk factors for infection include connective tissue disorders, male sex, age 20 years or greater, and immune suppressive medications.

Our estimated risk of deep infections is consistent with previous reports.Reference Katz, Battaglia, Patino, Reichmann, Hunter and Richmond 4 – Reference Williams, Laurencin, Warren, Speciale, Brause and O’Brien 18 Prior studies found trends toward decreased risk among patients receiving allograft tissue but were not statistically significant.Reference Greenberg, Robertson, Vallurupalli, White and Allen 3 – Reference Barker, Drakos, Maak, Warren, Williams and Allen 5 , Reference Indelli, Dillingham, Fanton and Schurman 16 Our large, multicenter sample makes our estimate more robust than those of prior investigations. Some of these prior studies also had the weakness of assessing autograft tissues as a homogenous entity. In our study we were able to distinguish hamstring vs bone-patellar tendon-bone autografts and identified a significantly increased risk of infection in recipients of the former but not the latter. Decreased surgical time, less extensive tissue dissection, and less graft preparation have been proposed as explanations for decreased infection risk among allograft recipients. The only organisms identified in infections following allograft procedures, and in most of the infections following autograft procedures, are common on the skin and are frequently present in postsurgical infections in general.

The increased risk of infection with hamstring autografts vs bone-patellar tendon-bone autografts has been previously observed but the reasons for increased risk with this harvest site remain unclear.Reference Barker, Drakos, Maak, Warren, Williams and Allen 5 , Reference Maletis, Inacio, Reynolds, Desmond, Maletis and Funahashi 6 Maletis et alReference Maletis, Inacio, Reynolds, Desmond, Maletis and Funahashi 6 proposed several potential causal mechanisms, including increased preparation time for hamstring autografts; use of multifilament suture that may harbor bacteria in preparation of hamstring grafts; and the location of the hamstring graft harvest site directly over the tibial tunnel site as opposed to allograft (no harvest site) or bone-patellar tendon-bone (contralateral knee), perhaps creating a wound environment more conducive to bacterial growth. We further speculate that the patellar fossa may be a more conducive environment for bacterial growth because it is less exposed, more difficult for patients to routinely clean, more likely to have hair, and perhaps more often moist than the anterior patellar in some patients. Furthermore, the patellar fossa may be more difficult to disinfect adequately during surgery compared with the patellar region given its more complex topography and the increased difficulty of adequately positioning patients to access this site compared with the anterior patellar. Finally, there has been a case report of 3 hamstring autograft infections attributed to improper sterilization of the graft harvester.Reference Tuman, Diduch, Baumfeld, Rubino and Hart 36

An important limitation of our study is its retrospective design. Operative details such as concurrent procedures (eg, meniscus or posterior cruciate ligament repair), tourniquet use, length of surgery, and prophylactic antibiotics were not always available in the medical records. These potential risk factors for infection were not included in our analysis and may be sources of residual confounding. Additionally, we note that some of the potential risk factors for infection we assessed are rare (eg, radiation therapy, bone marrow transplant, renal disease) and therefore we cannot reliably estimate their true infection risk despite our large sample size. Another potential limitation is the decision to limit the postoperative risk window for deep infections to 6 months rather than 1 year, per National Healthcare Safety Network criteria. In our study, 98% of confirmed deep infections occurred within 90 days of surgery, which is consistent with prior reports.Reference Crawford, Kainer and Jernigan 2 , Reference Katz, Battaglia, Patino, Reichmann, Hunter and Richmond 4 , Reference Barker, Drakos, Maak, Warren, Williams and Allen 5 , Reference Wang, Ao, Wang, Hu, Cui and Yu 8 , Reference Binnet and Basarir 9 , Reference Van Tongel, Stuyck, Bellemans and Vandenneucker 11 – Reference Schollin-Borg, Michaelsson and Rahme 15 , Reference Williams, Laurencin, Warren, Speciale, Brause and O’Brien 18

In conclusion, we found that risk of deep infection following ACL reconstruction is low. We found no significant difference in infection risk between allografts and bone-patellar tendon-bone autografts, but there was a significantly elevated infection risk with use of hamstring autograft tissue. Our results contribute to a growing body of evidence that use of allograft tissue implants in ACL reconstruction is a safe alternative to surgery with autografts. Other risk factors for infection included connective tissue disorders, male sex, age, and immune suppressive medications.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We thank the project managers, programmers, and medical record reviewers at each site. We thank Yury Vilk for developing the data extraction program and Victoria J. Morrison for leading record reviews and training abstractors at each site.

Financial support. US Food and Drug Administration (HHSF223200810026I/TO6 and HHSF22301005T).

Potential conflicts of interest. All authors report no conflicts of interest relevant to this article.

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this paper are those of the authors and are not intended to convey official Food and Drug Administration policy or guidance.

SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL

To view supplementary material for this article, please visit http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/ice.2016.65

References

REFERENCES

1. Lyman, S, Koulouvaris, P, Sherman, S, Do, H, Mandl, LA, Marx, RG. Epidemiology of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: trends, readmissions, and subsequent knee surgery. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2009;91:2321–2328.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2. Crawford, C, Kainer, M, Jernigan, D, et al. Investigation of postoperative allograft-associated infections in patients who underwent musculoskeletal allograft implantation. Clin Infect Dis 2005;41:195–200.Google Scholar
3. Greenberg, DD, Robertson, M, Vallurupalli, S, White, RA, Allen, WC. Allograft compared with autograft infection rates in primary anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2010;92:2402–2408.Google Scholar
4. Katz, LM, Battaglia, TC, Patino, P, Reichmann, W, Hunter, DJ, Richmond, JC. A retrospective comparison of the incidence of bacterial infection following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with autograft versus allograft. Arthroscopy 2008;24:1330–1335.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5. Barker, JU, Drakos, MC, Maak, TG, Warren, RF, Williams, RJ 3rd, Allen, AA. Effect of graft selection on the incidence of postoperative infection in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Am J Sports Med 2010;38:281–286.Google Scholar
6. Maletis, GB, Inacio, MC, Reynolds, S, Desmond, JL, Maletis, MM, Funahashi, TT. Incidence of postoperative anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction infections: graft choice makes a difference. Am J Sports Med 2013;41:1780–1785.Google Scholar
7. Maletis, GB, Inacio, MC, Funahashi, TT. Analysis of 16,192 anterior cruciate ligament reconstructions from a community-based registry. Am J Sports Med 2013;41:2090–2098.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8. Wang, C, Ao, Y, Wang, J, Hu, Y, Cui, G, Yu, J. Septic arthritis after arthroscopic anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a retrospective analysis of incidence, presentation, treatment, and cause. Arthroscopy 2009;25:243–249.Google Scholar
9. Binnet, MS, Basarir, K. Risk and outcome of infection after different arthroscopic anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction techniques. Arthroscopy 2007;23:862–868.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10. Schulz, AP, Gotze, S, Schmidt, HG, Jurgens, C, Faschingbauer, M. Septic arthritis of the knee after anterior cruciate ligament surgery: a stage-adapted treatment regimen. Am J Sports Med 2007;35:1064–1069.Google Scholar
11. Van Tongel, A, Stuyck, J, Bellemans, J, Vandenneucker, H. Septic arthritis after arthroscopic anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a retrospective analysis of incidence, management and outcome. Am J Sports Med 2007;35:1059–1063.Google Scholar
12. Judd, D, Bottoni, C, Kim, D, Burke, M, Hooker, S. Infections following arthroscopic anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Arthroscopy 2006;22:375–384.Google Scholar
13. Fong, SY, Tan, JL. Septic arthritis after arthroscopic anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Ann Acad Med Singapore 2004;33:228–234.Google Scholar
14. Burks, RT, Friederichs, MG, Fink, B, Luker, MG, West, HS, Greis, PE. Treatment of postoperative anterior cruciate ligament infections with graft removal and early reimplantation. Am J Sports Med 2003;31:414–418.Google Scholar
15. Schollin-Borg, M, Michaelsson, K, Rahme, H. Presentation, outcome, and cause of septic arthritis after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a case control study. Arthroscopy 2003;19:941–947.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
16. Indelli, PF, Dillingham, M, Fanton, G, Schurman, DJ. Septic arthritis in postoperative anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2002;398:182–188.Google Scholar
17. Viola, R, Marzano, N, Vianello, R. An unusual epidemic of Staphylococcus-negative infections involving anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with salvage of the graft and function. Arthroscopy 2000;16:173–177.Google Scholar
18. Williams, RJ 3rd, Laurencin, CT, Warren, RF, Speciale, AC, Brause, BD, O’Brien, S. Septic arthritis after arthroscopic anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Diagnosis and management. Am J Sports Med 1997;25:261–267.Google Scholar
19. Baer, GS, Harner, CD. Clinical outcomes of allograft versus autograft in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Clin Sports Med 2007;26:661–681.Google Scholar
20. Poehling, GG, Curl, WW, Lee, CA, et al. Analysis of outcomes of anterior cruciate ligament repair with 5-year follow-up: allograft versus autograft. Arthroscopy 2005;21:774–785.Google Scholar
21. Strickland, SM, MacGillivray, JD, Warren, RF. Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with allograft tendons. Orthop Clin North Am 2003;34:41–47.Google Scholar
22. Mallick, TK, Mosquera, A, Zinderman, CE, Martin, LS, Wise, RP. Reported infections after human tissue transplantation before and after new Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulations, United States, 2001 through June, 2010. Cell Tissue Bank 2012;13:259–267.Google Scholar
23. Cartwright, EJ, Prabhu, RM, Zinderman, CE, et al. Transmission of Elizabethkingia meningoseptica (formerly Chryseobacterium meningosepticum) to tissue-allograft recipients: a report of two cases. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2010;92:1501–1506.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
24. Mei-Dan, O, Mann, G, Steinbacher, G, Ballester, SJ, Cugat, RB, Alvarez, PD. Septic arthritis with Staphylococcus lugdunensis following arthroscopic ACL revision with BPTB allograft. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2008;16:15–18.Google Scholar
25. Mroz, TE, Joyce, MJ, Steinmetz, MP, Lieberman, IH, Wang, JC. Musculoskeletal allograft risks and recalls in the United States. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 2008;16:559–565.Google Scholar
26. Lee, EH, Ferguson, D, Jernigan, D, et al. Invasive group-A streptococcal infection in an allograft recipient. A case report. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2007;89:2044–2047.Google Scholar
27. Wang, S, Zinderman, C, Wise, R, Braun, M. Infections and human tissue transplants: review of FDA MedWatch reports 2001-2004. Cell Tissue Bank 2007;8:211–219.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
28. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Brief report: investigation into recalled human tissue for transplantation—United States, 2005-2006. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2006;55:564–566.Google Scholar
29. Kainer, MA, Linden, JV, Whaley, DN, et al. Clostridium infections associated with musculoskeletal-tissue allografts. N Engl J Med 2004;350:2564–2571.Google Scholar
30. Barbour, SA, King, W. The safe and effective use of allograft tissue—an update. Am J Sports Med 2003;31:791–797.Google Scholar
31. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Hepatitis C virus transmission from an antibody-negative organ and tissue donor—United States, 2000-2002. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2003;52:273–274, 276.Google Scholar
32. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Update: allograft-associated bacterial infections—United States, 2002. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2002;51:207–210.Google Scholar
33. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Septic arthritis following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using tendon allografts—Florida and Louisiana, 2000. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2001;50:1081–1083.Google Scholar
34. Murphy, MV, Du, DT, Hua, W, et al. The utility of claims data for infection surveillance following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2014;35:652–659.Google Scholar
35. Horan, TC, Andrus, M, Dudeck, MA. CDC/NHSN surveillance definition of health care-associated infection and criteria for specific types of infections in the acute care setting. Am J Infect Control 2008;36:309–332.Google Scholar
36. Tuman, J, Diduch, DR, Baumfeld, JA, Rubino, LJ, Hart, JM. Joint infection unique to hamstring tendon harvester used during anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction surgery. Arthroscopy 2008;24:618–620.Google Scholar
Figure 0

TABLE 1Characteristics of Patients Undergoing Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction

Figure 1

TABLE 2Pathogens by Graft Type

Figure 2

TABLE 3Risk Factors for Infection After Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction

Supplementary material: File

Murphy supplementary material

Supplementary Table

Download Murphy supplementary material(File)
File 24.4 KB